It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid

Obama-Nation: Historic Win -- Now What on Energy?

Historic.  That's the word that most of the pundits used to describe it.  While I have my reservations about some of the issues and how the President Elect may deal with them, I agree that we have an exciting situation in the United States.  Biut closer to my heart is energy.  And what can we expect from the president elect and the vice president elect?

Lets review what they said during the campaign and you decide.  As for me -- I see HUGE hurdles, given the economy.  Many challanges remain in California and as to how we meld with the campaign promises and the realities that come -- well, lets wait and see...

What Does Barack Obama Say About Energy?

www.barackobama.com

ü      Reduce the Burden of Rising Gas Prices on Working Families

ü      Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

ü      Invest in a Clean Energy Future

ü      Support Next Generation Biofuels

ü      Set A

merica on Path to Oil Independence

ü      Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

ü      Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

Senator Joe Biden

The energy challenge take sacrifice and is a moral crusade. (Dec 2007)

FactCheck: Oil did not jump $18/bbl due to Iran Resolution. (Dec 2007)

Supports cap-and-trade for greenhouse gases. (Nov 2007)

Provide for emergency fuel assistance immediately. (Oct 2007)

Make every automobile sold be a flex-fuel automobile. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)

Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)

Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)

Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)

Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)

Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)

So, What do Sarah and Joe Say About Energy?

While I will make no predictions on who ultimately wins the presidential election, I have been tracking where the candidates stand on energy matters.  Followin is where the vice presidential candidates stand on the matter.  And by the way, remember that the VP debate is tonight.  Here's what you can look out for on energy:

Governor Sarah Palin

Produce more of our own oil & gas, for national security. (Sep 2008)

Gas pipeline:history's largest private-sector infrastructure. (Sep 2008)

More pipelines; more nukes; more coal; more alternatives. (Sep 2008)

Claimed major triumph: $500 million subsidy for gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)

Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)

Resource rebate: suspend AK 8-cent fuel tax for one year. (Aug 2008)

Gasline Inducement Act: 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)

Commercialize Alaska's North Slope natural gas. (Aug 2008)

Appointed an Alaska oil and gas commissioner. (Aug 2008)

To win, GOP must push energy independence. (Aug 2008)

Agrees with Obama on more Alaska oil & gas production. (Aug 2008)

Windfall oil profits tax prevents investment. (Aug 2008)

Lift moratorium on offshore drilling. (Jul 2008)

Convinced McCain to drill offshore; not yet on drilling ANWR. (Jul 2008)

Exxon-Mobil should pay $507 million for Exxon Valdez spill. (Jul 2008)

Unlock ANWR; we're ready, willing and able to contribute. (Jun 2008)

Energy relief plan: $100 per person monthly, for oil & gas. (May 2008)

Bush is right: drill ANWR & develop our own supplies. (Apr 2008)

Fully fund for the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office. (Feb 2008)

$250M for proven alternative energy, including wind & hydro. (Jan 2008)

Gas pipelines are approved if they meet Alaska's needs. (Jan 2008)

National energy policy not an either/or proposition. (Nov 2007)

Fund cellulosic biofuel research in Farm Bill. (Oct 2007)

Submitted legislation to build natural AGIA gas pipeline. (Mar 2007)

Stranded Gas Development Act no longer applies. (Nov 2006)

Get ANWR open. (Nov 2006)

Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (Nov 2006)

Pursue gasline plan that is best for ALL Alaskans. (Nov 2006)

Met with producers and employee groups for pipeline deal. (Oct 2006)

Firm start date as part of gasline incentive offer. (Oct 2006)

Opposes natural gas reserves tax--it's not earned income yet. (Oct 2006)

Analyze potential costs associated with climate change. (Oct 2006)

Senator Joe Biden

The energy challenge take sacrifice and is a moral crusade. (Dec 2007)

FactCheck: Oil did not jump $18/bbl due to Iran Resolution. (Dec 2007)

Supports cap-and-trade for greenhouse gases. (Nov 2007)

Provide for emergency fuel assistance immediately. (Oct 2007)

Make every automobile sold be a flex-fuel automobile. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)

Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)

Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)

Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)

Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)

Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)

Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)

Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)

I will give the edge to the Right Honorable Governor Palin on this issue.  What do you think?

McCain vs. Obama on Energy – Who Wins this Battle?

So, we have heard a lot from both of the presidential campaigns on energy this week, but have either of the candidates delivered knockout punches on the issue?  In my opinion, neither candidate has done that – but for now I would score the fight in favor of McCain, only because he is not loading up his plan with more spending.  Take a look for yourself, and make your decision.

 

What Does John McCain Say About Energy?

www.johnmccain.com

ü      Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production

ü      Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector

ü      Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy

ü      Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation

ü      Promoting Energy Efficiency

ü      Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil

ü      Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax

 

What Does Barack Obama Say About Energy?

www.barackobama.com

ü      Reduce the Burden of Rising Gas Prices on Working Families

ü      Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

ü      Invest in a Clean Energy Future

ü      Support Next Generation Biofuels

ü      Set America on Path to Oil Independence

ü      Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

ü      Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

Do We Really Want to Stop Global Warming?

There were a couple of stories yesterday about cities having small carbon footprints…  The San Diego Union Tribune carried one and so did The San Jose Mercury News – both good stories, but how do these cities fair when we keep hearing that the state will not achieve it’s 20% renewables target by 2010 (as is mandated under current law)?

 

Let’s assume that we could not only meet that target, but better yet, we exceeded that target…  How would these cities then be impacted (on a global scale) by events such as the eruption of the Chaiten volcano in Chile last month that spewed lava and blasted ash more than 12 miles (20 kilometers) into the sky or the devastating earthquake that rocked China this month?

Seems to me, that we will really need to step up efforts around the globe if we really hope to impact global warming…  But back to my question, and closer to home (at least as far as generation is concerned), how will we accomplish this without the infrastructure to allow us to deliver the low emission generation? 

California really needs to re-evaluate our views on this matter and allow for creative thinking.  Do we really want to have a lasting impact on global warming?  I mean in the positive sense…  Since the answer is a resounding "yes," I would submit that we had better allow for the infrastructure to be developed, including transmission, solar, wind, hydro, natural gas (we need the gas generation to run when the wind is not blowing) and yes, even rethink nuclear generation.  Admittedly, nuclear is not in the cards anytime soon, but we need to begin that dialogue today.  How can it be that France and Japan are doing so well with nuclear and we can barely even say the word? 

Last month I wrote about the comments that Governor Schwarzenegger made at the Yale Climate Change Conference .  He’s right – we all need to take a deep breath and get out of the way and allow the infrastructure that is needed to be built to actually be built.  Otherwise we should be honest and admit that we really don’t want anything to change.  The more we stand in the way of the infrastructure development that is needed, the harder it will be to turn global warming around.

CAISO Summer 2008 Outlook: Clean Energy Presents New Benefits and Challanges

CAISO has issued the Summer 2008 outlook and in it they say that the clean energy future we are moving toward will present new benefits -- but also new challanges. While the summer outlook looks good, the grid operator will have continued reliance on conservation and demand response (demand response: this is a program that allows the utilities/CAISO to shot down participating businesses when the grid is stressed for electric capacity -- when we are short electricuty -- typically on really hot days or when the grid experiences disruptions -- like fires near transmission).

The challanges that California will face as we transition to the new cleaner energy sources is exactly that "the transition." How to get to greener from the existing mix of supply? I think it will require a bridge -- earlier I called it a blue bridge (referring to clean burning natural gas). The blue bridge will be in the form of new state of the art generation that will provide grid support and reliabilty as the new green generation is developed and interconnected by new transmission. So I am back to my old song and dance: we need everything--new transmission, new gas fueled generation, conservation, demand response, and renewables of all kinds. Guess what? The CAISO agrees. They also agree there needs to be a delicate balance for how we bring these resources ton-line.

As for the summer... well, I am not as confident as the CAISO, I think that when the temperatures hit the century mark, all bets are off and folks just do not conserve. The demand response programs are grossly under subscribed, so I would not lean on those too much. Having said that -- the reserves look good, but that means that all the conservation that can occur and all the demand response that can occur, will occur. It also means that we get all of the transmission flowing without interruption (the energy imports from other part of the West) and that we have no major, fires or hydro disruptions. That's a lot of if's.

So, until we build the infrastructure we desperately need, we will be counting an many moving parts and leaning on hope to keep our lights from flickering. Good luck to us all this summer!

To see the CAISO release, go to: www.caiso.com

Happy Earth Day! Now, How Will We Get to the Green Future?

OK, first let me hug the planet with my public service announcement for EARTH DAY 2008 -- so lets start with my basic message: do the right thing.

And now, my commercial:

Did you know that electric demand for lighting could be cut in half if every household replaced its five most commonly used incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs? Earth Day 2008 is a great chance to start thinking about small, everyday decisions that can have a big impact on the environment. For example, turn your lights off when they are not in use and replace incandescent light bulbs with newer, efficient models.

While Earth Day comes just once a year, protecting and preserving our environment for future generations is something to think about every day.

There, I feel greener already.

But how will we really get there? Last week I attended a meeting of the California Foundation for the Environment and the Economy. The conference concentrated on the role that natural gas will play in getting us to a green future -- basically how natural gas could be the bridge to that new green future -- the transition form carbon to clean.

Natural gas is an excellent clean fuel source that can allow us to bridge to green -- a blue bridge to a green future.

New state-of-the-art clean-burning natural gas facilities are going to be needed in order to really afford us the ability to sustain and support a transition to green. In the last year, over 7500 MWs of new coal generation facilities have been cancelled. But what will replace them as the consumption continues to grow?

My suggestion: conservation, efficiency, new renewables, new transmission and new gas fired generation. Again, we need it all. And lots of it. Even if we are even moderately successful in curbing our apetite for more energy, we will need to need to secure the new infrastructure that will replace the current aging system -- something I will go into on another post.

So, do your part -- and Happy Earth Day!